The European Parliament has approved looser rules for plants developed using new genomic techniques. Many varieties altered with methods such as CRISPR-Cas will no longer be treated like traditional genetically modified organisms. For many products, special labeling in supermarkets will no longer be required — although seeds will still have to carry a notice.
The EU is fundamentally changing its rules for new genetic engineering in agriculture. The European Parliament has voted to regulate plants developed using so-called new genomic techniques far less strictly than traditional genetically modified organisms. These include methods such as CRISPR-Cas, which allow targeted changes to a plant’s genetic material.
In future, the key question will no longer be only which method was used to alter a plant. Instead, regulation will focus more strongly on how much the plant differs genetically from conventionally bred varieties. This shifts the EU’s approach from process-based regulation toward a stronger focus on the final result.
For consumers, one point is likely to matter most: certain foods made from these plants will no longer need special labeling in supermarkets. Seeds, however, will still have to be labeled so that farmers can identify whether a variety was developed using new genomic techniques.
What will change
The new rules distinguish between two categories. Category NGT1 plants are those that could also have emerged through conventional breeding or natural mutation. Many of the previous genetic engineering requirements will no longer apply to them, including extensive environmental assessments and mandatory labeling of finished food products in supermarkets.
Rules will remain stricter for NGT2 plants. These will still be subject to more extensive requirements, including traceability and labeling. EU member states will also be able to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of such plants.
This creates a new, tiered system. The EU wants to make modern breeding methods easier to use, but it is not fully deregulating every form of genetic modification.
Hopes for more resilient crops
Supporters see the move as an important step for agriculture and food security. New genomic techniques could help plants adapt more quickly to climate stress. Crops could become more resistant to drought, heat, pests or disease. Reducing the need for fertilizers or pesticides is another possible goal.
Against the backdrop of climate change, crop failures and global competition, supporters argue that Europe must no longer hold back modern breeding technologies with outdated rules. If other regions develop and approve new varieties faster, European agriculture risks falling behind.
For smaller breeding companies, research institutes and startups, the new rules could also create opportunities — at least in theory. Faster procedures and lower approval hurdles could make it easier to develop new varieties.
Criticism over lack of transparency
Environmental groups, the organic sector and parts of the political spectrum are strongly critical of this very point. If finished foods no longer have to be labeled in supermarkets, they argue, consumers lose freedom of choice. Anyone who wants to avoid genetic engineering will find it much harder to identify such products.
The GMO-free and organic farming sectors also see risks. Without continuous traceability, possible mixing could become harder to control. Critics also fear that unintended ecological effects may be examined less thoroughly if environmental assessments are dropped for many NGT1 plants.
The debate is therefore not only scientific, but also political and ethical. It is about innovation, food security and climate adaptation — but also about transparency, the precautionary principle and trust in food.
Patents remain controversial
The question of patents is also particularly contentious. Critics warn that new genetic engineering methods could strengthen the market power of large agribusiness groups if varieties or specific traits are patented. Smaller breeders and farmers could become more dependent on a few dominant players.
Supporters argue that patents are necessary to finance research and innovation. Without protection for intellectual property, investment in new varieties could decline. The EU rules do include monitoring and review elements designed to address excessive market concentration, but critics consider these safeguards too weak or too late.
This once again highlights a central problem in modern agricultural policy: technological progress can help solve ecological and economic challenges. At the same time, it can create new dependencies if control and ownership rights are unevenly distributed.
The new rules are expected from 2028
The new framework is expected to apply from mid-2028. Germany abstained in the vote among member states. This means the issue remains politically sensitive at national level as well: while parts of the conservative bloc, the research sector and the biotechnology industry are pushing for more innovation, environmental and consumer protection groups warn of a loss of transparency.
For consumers, the most important change will simply be that certain new genetic engineering methods will become less visible in the finished product. Anyone who wants to know whether a plant comes from NGT1 methods will no longer automatically find that information on the food packaging.
The EU is therefore relying on a new logic: not every targeted genetic change should be treated like traditional genetic engineering. But precisely this new logic requires trust — in regulation, oversight, science and labeling along the supply chain.
SK
